Method for altering link weights in a communication network to provide traffic information for improved forecasting

ABSTRACT

The present invention comprises methods for increasing the rank of the routing matrix of an IP network by systematically altering link weights in the IP network. A full rank routing matrix may be used with further methods in accordance with the present invention to estimate the mean traffic of the IP network based upon the full rank routing matrix and measured link utilization values. The mean traffic and the covariance of the traffic may be iteratively estimated until the estimates coverage. Example methods in accordance with the present invention for estimating mean traffic and covariance of traffic are described for both stationary and non-stationary link utilization data.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No.10/702,887 filed Nov. 6, 2003, now pending, entitled METHOD FOR ALTERINGLINK WEIGHTS IN A COMMUNICATION NETWORK TO PROVIDE TRAFFIC INFORMATIONFOR IMPROVED FORECASTING, herein incorporated by reference.

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT

None.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates to the modeling and forecast of traffic inan IP network. More particularly, the present invention relates to theimproved modeling and forecasting of network traffic by systematicallymodifying the weights assigned to links in an IP network to create afull rank routing matrix for the network. Once a full rank routingmatrix is obtained, through any method, network traffic is modeled byiteratively estimating the traffic and the variance of the traffic untilthe estimates converge.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Internet protocol networks, often referred to as IP networks, arecomplex systems used by telecommunication service providers to providehigh bandwidth transmission of data packets, often over long distances.Data transmitted over an IP network may be internet related data, butmay also be data for any other purpose, such as voice telephone callstransmitted using voice over IP protocols.

An IP network comprises a plurality of high bandwidth links, such ashigh capacity fiber optic cables or, more typically a bundle of highcapacity fiber optic cables, connecting telecommunication equipment,such as routers. Routers and other equipment may be co-located in pointsof presence, often referred to as PoPs. Packets of data are transmittedfrom a first router to a second router over the intermediate linkconnecting the first and second routers. To transmit a data packet froman origin router in an IP network to the destination router, the datapacket is transmitted in a series of “hops” from one router to the nextuntil it reaches its destination. The node at which a packet begins isreferred to as the origin node, with the final node being referred to asthe destination node. At each router on the path, that routerindependently determines the shortest path route to the destination andtransmits the packet on the next hop of that shortest path route. Ameasure of the total traffic on any link of the IP network may beobtained by measuring packets transmitted or received by the routersconnected by that link, as each link joins two, and only two, routers.Accordingly, the total amount of traffic on a link over a given timeperiod may be determined based upon the traffic transmitted and/orreceived by the routers on either end of that link over the link. Avariety of methods are currently used to measure link utilizationvalues, and other methods may be developed in the future.

While information describing the total utilization of the links in an IPnetwork can be useful, telecommunication service providers often seek toobtain a measure of the traffic between pairs of origin and destinationnodes of the IP network, rather than simply the volume of traffic onlinks in the IP network. By knowing the traffic passing between pairs oforigin and destination nodes, network operators can better plan futurenetwork development and better manage network traffic through settingappropriate link weights to optimize network performance.

Optimizing network performance can be a critical issue fortelecommunication service providers operating IP networks. Large scaleIP networks are expensive investments, and upgrading an IP network to,for example, add additional links to accommodate increasing trafficdemand, requires both significant capital investment and considerabletime for planning, preparation, and installation.

However, optimal planning and management of an IP network can occur onlyif adequate information regarding network traffic is available to thenetwork operators. The present invention provides improved methods formodeling current network activity and forecasting future networkactivity.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Methods in accordance with the present invention provide improvedmodeling and forecasting of network traffic in an IP network. Inaccordance with the present invention, additional network informationmay be obtained by systematically perturbing the network by altering theweights assigned to links in the network to increase the rank of the IPnetwork's routing matrix, possibly even making the routing matrix fullrank. The present invention also provides new methods for modelingnetwork traffic using a full rank routing matrix, without regard to howthe full rank routing matrix was obtained. The various methods of thepresent invention may be used separately or together to provide improvedmodeling and forecasting of traffic for an IP network.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWINGS

The present invention is described in detail below with reference to theattached drawing figures, wherein:

FIG. 1 illustrates an example of a portion of an IP network;

FIG. 2 illustrates a method in accordance with the present invention forexpanding the rank of the routing matrix for an IP network;

FIG. 3 a and FIG. 3 b illustrate a further method in accordance with thepresent invention for expanding the rank of a routing matrix for an IPnetwork;

FIG. 4 a and FIG. 4 b illustrate a further method in accordance with thepresent invention for expanding the rank of a routing matrix for an IPnetwork; and

FIG. 5 illustrates a method in accordance with the present invention formodeling the traffic matrix and the variance of traffic in an IPnetwork.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

FIG. 1 illustrates a portion of an IP network for which methods inaccordance with the present invention may be utilized to collect trafficinformation and to model traffic between nodes of the network. Portion100 of the IP network may comprise a plurality of links connecting aplurality of nodes. Previously, a node has been described as a routerand a link as a bundle of several high bandwidth fiber optic cableconnecting a pair of routers. Nodes and links may be conceptualized inother ways as well. For example, what is described as a node may also bea PoP, an area code, or another higher level grouping of equipment, andtherefore could include a plurality of routers. If a node isconceptualized as an individual router, the links connecting the nodeswill be bundles of cables joining the routers. If nodes areconceptualized on the level of PoPs, area codes or other higher levels,then the links connecting the nodes may be a collection of theindividual links connecting the routers in each node. In actual use ofthe present invention, any level of abstraction may be utilized indescribing nodes and links. As described further herein, nodes arepresented as PoPs, but the methods described can be easily adapted byone skilled in the art for use at other layers of abstraction.

IP network portion 100 may comprise a first node 110, a second node 120,a third node 130, a fourth node 140, a fifth node 150, and a sixth node160. A plurality of links connect the nodes of portion 100. For example,link 112 connects node 110 and node 120. Link 114 connects node 110 andnode 140. Link 115 connects node 110 and node 150. Link 123 connectsnode 120 and node 130. Link 124 connects node 120 and node 140. Link 134connects node 130 and node 140. Link 136 connects node 130 and node 160.Link 145 connects node 140 and node 150. Link 146 connects node 140 andnode 160. Link 156 connects node 150 and node 160. It should be notedthat links may be unidirectional or bi-directional in accordance withthe present invention.

Portion 100 of an IP network illustrated in FIG. 1 may be used toillustrate, in part, the difficulty in modeling and forecasting trafficin an IP network. Suppose, for example, that link 114 is congested,meaning that traffic on link 114 exceeds a threshold amount at which thetransmission of data over link 114 becomes slowed or subject to packetloss. As illustrated in FIG. 1, the excessive traffic on link 114 mustbe due to packets being transmitted between node 110 and node 140. Theamount of traffic on link 114 may be readily measured, but the originnodes and destination nodes for the packets that make up the traffic arenot known. One way of addressing the overload of link 114 could be toconstruct an additional link connecting node 110 and node 140. However,the construction of an additional link, which typically involvesconsiderable expense and time, may not be necessary. For example, dataoriginating from node 110 and ultimately destined for node 130 may beresponsible for the congestion on link 114. If link 112 and link 123have available extra capacity, rather than incurring the expense ofconstructing a new link, data could be rerouted from node 110, via link112, to node 120, and then via link 123 to destination node 130. Oneskilled in the art will appreciate that numerous other scenarios maylikewise be responsible for congestion on a given link in the networkand may also be addressed by changing the routing of packets rather thanby building a new link. With only link utilization values, which oftenmay be all that are available to a network operator, modeling currenttraffic behavior of an IP network can be, to say the least, difficult,and forecasting future traffic can be virtually impossible.

Network traffic in an IP network may be described using matrices. Eventhe relatively small portion 100 of an IP network illustrated in FIG. 1is difficult to model mathematically without the use of matrices. Threematrices are often used to model a traffic in an IP network. A linkutilization matrix, which may be a column vector, describes linkutilization for the links in the IP network, which can be measured asdescribed above. A traffic matrix, which may also be a column vector,describes the traffic originating and destined for each pair of nodes inthe network. The estimation of the traffic matrix is needed to model andeffectively forecast network traffic, and it is ultimately estimated inaccordance with the present invention. The routing of traffic over thenetwork can be described using a routing matrix, which can be determinedbased upon the weights assigned links in the network as described below.

One skilled in the art will have a basic understanding of linearalgebra. Using linear algebra and matrix notation, traffic in an IPnetwork may be described as Y(k)=A(k)X(k). In this notation, k denotes adiscrete time. Y(k) is the link utilization vector at a time k, whichmay be constructed using the link utilization measurements for each linkin the IP network. A(k) is the routing matrix of the IP network at atime k. It should be noted that in many IP networks link weights arerarely changed, meaning that the routing matrix rarely changes, and istherefore often denoted simply as A. The routing matrix determines howtraffic between any given pair of nodes is routed. The routing matrixmay be determined using the weights assigned links in the network. Forexample, in further reference to FIG. 1, each of the plurality of linksin portion 100 of an IP network may be assigned a numerical weight.Often, the weights assigned links in an IP network are all within acertain predetermined range, for example, between five and fifty,although if a range is used any is permissible. Often, link weights arerestricted by network operators to integer values, but such arestriction is not necessary to the present invention. The shortest pathroute between a pair of nodes may be defined as the route for which thesum of the weights of the links is the lowest possible. Under thisdefinition, a route between an origin and destination node comprisingfive links, each assigned a weight of one, would be a shorter path thananother possible route comprising two links, each assigned a weight ofthree. In further reference to FIG. 1, if, for example, the shortestroute path between node 110 and node 130 was from node 110 to node 140via link 114, and then to node 130 via link 134, the routing matrixwould direct all traffic between node 110 and node 130 over link 114 andlink 134, with no traffic between link 110 and link 120 being directedto the other links in portion 100 of the IP network.

Each entry in a routing matrix corresponds to a link in the IP networkand an origin-destination node pair. While a variety of IP networkrouting rules may be used, often only one shortest path route ispermitted between an origin-destination node pair. If the linkcorresponding to an entry is on the only shortest path route between thecorresponding origin-destination node pair, then the entry in therouting matrix will be one, meaning that all traffic between the nodepair in question will be routed on that link. If the link correspondingto an entry is not on a shortest path route between the correspondingorigin-destination node pair, then the entry in the routing matrix willbe zero, meaning that no traffic between the node pair in question willbe routed on that link. One skilled in the art will realize that in someIP networks, a practice referred to as route splitting is permitted, inwhich case more than one shortest path routes may be used for anorigin-destination node pair. If route splitting is permitted in an IPnetwork an entry in the IP network's routing matrix may be fractional,meaning that the equivalent fraction of traffic between thecorresponding origin-destination node pair will be routed on that link.The present invention may be applied in IP networks permitting routesplitting, but route splitting is not necessary to the practice of thepresent invention.

X(k) is a vector describing the traffic between each pair of nodes. Eachentry in X(k) corresponds to the amount of traffic from one origin nodeto one destination node at a time k. The dot product of X(k) and A(k)yields the link utilization vector Y(k). A(k) is known, and Y(k) may bemeasured. The goal, then is to completely and definitely solve for X(k)using the known A(k) and Y(k). However, solving for X(k) in most IPnetworks has not been possible. Just in the portion 100 of an IP networkillustrated in FIG. 1, there are fifteen node pairs. Since in each ofthe fifteen node pairs either node may be the origin node and eithernode may be a destination node, there are thirty origin-destination nodepairs in portion 100. While there are thirty origin-destination nodepairs for which a network operator would like to model traffic patterns,there exist only ten links for which utilization values are available.One with a basic knowledge of linear algebra will realize that thethirty unknowns in X(k) cannot all be solved using a maximum of tenindependent linear equations. Frequently, however, the problem solvingfor X(k) is greater than a lack of utilization values. Often, therouting matrix includes numerous rows that are not linearly independentfrom other rows in the routing matrix. The lack of a sufficient numberof linearly independent rows in the routing matrix may be described inthe terminology of linear algebra as the routing matrix not being fullrank. To fully solve for X(k) requires a full rank routing matrix.

Referring now to FIG. 2, a method 200 for increasing the rank of therouting matrix of an IP network in accordance with the present inventionis illustrated. In step 210, link utilization data is collected. Step210 may be performed in any way. In step 220, at least one link weightis altered. Step 220 may serve to redirect traffic in the IP network bychanging the shortest route path for one or more origin-destination nodepairs. This rerouting of traffic will create a new routing matrix and anetwork traffic vector that may then be used as additional data insolving for the traffic matrix. Method 200 then returns to step 210 andlink utilization data is collected with the at least one altered linkweight. Method 200 may be repeated a predetermined number of times, ormay be iteratively repeated until a full rank routing matrix isobtained. If method 200 is repeated a predetermined number of times, thenumber of times method 200 is repeated may vary depending upon the IPnetwork with which method 200 is used, and may be the number of timesexpected in order to obtain a full rank routing matrix, although a loweror higher number of iterations may also be used.

Referring now to FIG. 3 a and FIG. 3 b, a further method 300 inaccordance with the present invention for increasing the rank of therouting matrix of an IP network by altering link weights is illustrated.In step 305, link utilization data is collected. Step 305 may comprisecollecting link utilization data during the IP network's normaloperation. Step 305 may be omitted from methods in accordance with thepresent invention. Step 305 may be performed in many IP networks as partof normal network monitoring. In step 310, candidate snapshots areidentified. A snapshot may be thought of as a set of link weights forthe IP network. Depending upon what, if any, restrictions are placedupon the setting of link weights in an IP network, step 310 may identifya very large number, theoretically even an infinite number, of candidatesnapshots. Accordingly, step 310 may be performed in conjunction withother steps of method 300 to limit the number of candidate snapshots.

In step 315, candidate snapshots may be limited to those with linkweight changes that will create a new shortest path route between atleast one origin-destination node pair. If a link weight change does notchange the shortest path route for at least one origin-destination nodepair, it will not alter the routing matrix and therefore will not resultin an increase in the rank of the routing matrix for the IP network andtherefore will not aid in solving for the traffic matrix. Therefore, asnapshot excluded in step 315 would not provide new network informationif used.

In step 320 candidate snapshots may be limited to those that comply withpredetermined network performance parameters by excluding snapshots thatwould exceed a predetermined delay limit. In an IP network, theend-to-end delay of a connection, sometimes referred to as the latency,can be an important issue. The delay is the total amount of timerequired for a data packet to traverse the network from origin todestination. An end-to-end delay outside of certain parameters, whichmay vary from network to network and from application to application,may be unacceptable. Often, the delay associated with any link or nodein an IP network may be known. With this delay information, theend-to-end delay for each origin-destination node pair's shortest routepath may be determined. The delay limit of step 320 may be defined in avariety of ways, such as the average end-to-end delay betweenorigin-destination node pairs in the IP network, the average delay of alink, or in other ways. For example, if the end-to-end delay for any ofthe shortest route paths exceeds a predetermined maximum allowable delaylimit, that snapshot could be rejected in step 320. As a furtherexample, a delay limit could be defined for every origin-destinationnode pair, with a snapshot being excluded if one or some otherpredetermined number of node pairs would have a shortest path route withan end-to-end exceeding that node pair's delay limit. Other delay limitsmay also be used. It should be noted that step 320 may be omitted frommethods in accordance with the present invention for any reason,particularly if connection delay is not an important consideration inthe operation of a given IP network.

In step 325, candidate snapshots may be limited to those that complywith the predetermined network performance parameters by excludingsnapshots that would exceed a predetermined load limit. As with thedelay limit, the load limit may be expressed in a variety of ways, suchas the average load on links in the IP network or the load on each linkin the network. If a link in an IP network experiences load demandsabove certain amounts, which may vary from link to link, networkperformance on that link may suffer. Examples of common problems for anoverloaded link include increased delay and packet loss. The load on alink may be predicted in a variety of ways. For example, methods inaccordance with the present invention may have been performed using theIP network previously, thereby allowing the load on a link to bepredicted using a previously obtained traffic matrix or previouslyobtained link utilization values measured with the same or a similarsnapshot. While forecasting the demand likely to be placed upon anygiven link in the IP network without using methods in accordance withthe present invention may be difficult and inexact, a rough predictionof link utilization for the links in the IP network may be made usingother approximation techniques. In some circumstances, methods inaccordance with the present invention may have already been performed inwhich case a previously obtained traffic matrix may be used to obtain aprediction of link utilization. If the predicted utilization, howeverdefined or predicted, exceeds a predetermined limit, such as eightypercent of a links capacity, that snapshot may be rejected in step 325.Step 325 may be omitted from methods in accordance with the presentinvention.

In step 330, the candidate snapshots remaining are ordered from thoselikely to provide the most new network traffic information to thoselikely to provide the least network traffic information. Step 330 ofordering candidate snapshots may greatly reduce the number of snapshotsneeded to obtain a full rank routing matrix. A variety of criteria maybe used to determine how likely a candidate snapshot is to provide newnetwork traffic information and how much new network traffic informationa snapshot is likely to provide. For example, the number oforigin-destination node pairs that will have their shortest path routechanged by a snapshot may be one indication of the amount of networktraffic information a snapshot is likely to provide. Another possibilitywould be to determine the number of node pairs which will become wellknown, which shall be described further below, by applying a candidatesnapshot. A ranking function may be used to order the candidatesnapshots. An example of one acceptable ranking function is describedbelow. It should be noted that step 330 may be omitted from methods inaccordance with the present invention.

In step 335, the candidate snapshots may be evaluated in the orderdetermined in step 330 to determine whether a candidate snapshot willincrease the rank of the routing matrix and whether a candidate snapshotwill result in the routing matrix becoming full rank. Evaluation step335 may be performed in conjunction with discarding step 340 anddiscarding step 345 to eliminate snapshots that will not increase therank of the routing matrix or that are not necessary to obtain a fullrank routing matrix. It should be noted that step 330 of ordering thecandidate snapshots allows step 335 to evaluate candidate snapshots inan order that begins with the candidate snapshots most likely toincrease the rank of the routing matrix and thereby likely to mostrapidly result in a full rank routing matrix. If step 330 is omitted,step 335 may be performed on the candidate snapshots in any order,although this may drastically increase the computational resourcesrequired to perform step 335 of evaluating the candidate snapshots. Instep 340, candidate snapshots that will not increase the rank of therouting matrix are discarded. Even a candidate snapshot that will changethe shortest path route between an origin-destination node pair andtherefore was not excluded in step 315 may be discarded in step 340 ifthe candidate snapshot's routing matrix is not linearly independent fromthe routing matrix of a prior snapshot. In step 345 candidate snapshotsordered after the candidate snapshot that will make the routing matrixfull rank are discarded. While step 345 may be omitted, once the routingmatrix of an IP network is full rank, the traffic matrix may be fullyestimated and additional application of snapshots is unnecessary. Ifstep 330 of ordering the candidate snapshots is omitted, step 345 maydiscard the remaining unevaluated snapshots when a candidate snapshotthat will make the routing matrix full rank is identified. It should benoted, however, that if step 330 of ordering the snapshots is omitted,more snapshots will likely be required to obtain a full rank routingmatrix.

In step 350, the link weight changes of the remaining candidatesnapshots are applied at predetermined intervals, and may be applied inthe order determined in step 330. In step 360, link utilization valuesare collected for each candidate snapshot. These additional linkutilization values and the associated additional routing matrices may beused in any way, although exemplary methods in accordance with thepresent invention utilizing this additional information to model the IPnetwork's traffic matrix are further described below.

Referring now to FIG. 4 a and FIG. 4 b, a further method 400 inaccordance with the present invention for increasing the rank of an IPnetwork's routing matrix by altering link weights in the IP network isillustrated. In step 402, link utilization data is collected. Step 402may comprise collecting link utilization data during an IP network'snormal operation. Step 402 may be omitted from methods in accordancewith the present invention.

In step 410, snapshots of link weight changes are created. Dependingupon what, if any, restrictions are placed upon the setting of linkweights in an IP network, step 410 may identify a very large number,theoretically even an infinite number, of candidate snapshots.Accordingly, step 410 may be performed in conjunction with other stepsof method 400 to limit the number of candidate snapshots.

In step 412, candidate snapshots may be limited to those that alter asingle link weight. Step 412 serves to restrict candidate snapshots, atleast initially, to snapshots that change only one link weight, whichmay be preferable in some IP networks because a change to a single linkweight is less likely to drastically alter network performance in anunpredictable or unacceptable fashion. Step 412 may be omitted, and suchomission may be desirable in circumstances where a network operatordesires to minimize the total number of snapshots applied to obtain afull rank routing matrix. Step 412 may also be modified to limitcandidate snapshots that alter a number of link weights, or a range oflink weights, other than one. A change of multiple link weights in asingle snapshot may be more likely to generate significant changes tothe routing matrix, and, hence, more rapidly bring the routing matrix tofull rank than a snapshot with a single weight change. Step 412 may alsobe incorporated as a substep in step 420, which is described furtherbelow.

In step 414, candidate snapshots may be limited to those with linkweight changes that will reroute network traffic by changing theshortest route path between at least one origin-destination node pair.As explained above with regard to example method 300, if a candidatesnapshot does not reroute traffic between at least one pair of nodes, itwill not provide additional network information and will not increasethe rank of the routing matrix.

In step 420, candidate snapshots may be limited to those that complywith predetermined network parameters. While step 420 may be omittedfrom methods in accordance with the present invention, it serves toprovide at least some assurance that the IP network will functionproperly at all times by excluding candidate snapshots that would belikely to impair IP network operation. Step 420 may be used to assurethat no candidate snapshot is applied that will violate operatingparameters of the IP network. Snapshots excluded in step 420 may beretained, for example in a separate computer file, for subsequent use ifcandidate snapshots need to be expanded to obtain a full rank routingmatrix. While step 420 is not limited to any particular parameter or setof parameters, examples are substep 422 of excluding candidate snapshotsbeyond network link weight limits, substep 424 of excluding candidatesnapshots that would exceed delay limits, and substep 426 of excludingcandidate snapshots that would exceed load limits.

Substep 422 of excluding candidate snapshots that are beyond networklink weight limits may serve to constrain the range in which linkweights are adjusted in a snapshot. Substep 422 may require that thefinal link weight be within a specified range, such as between anumerical value of five and fifty, or may limit how much the weight of agiven link can be changed in a snapshot, for example, not allowing alink weight to be adjusted upward or downward more than five. Substep422 may use link weight limits more, or even less, stringent than limitsplaced on link weights in normal IP network operation, but may also bethe same. It should be noted that substep 422 may be incorporated intostep 410, so that the only snapshots created or those that comply withthe network link weight limits.

Substep 424 of excluding candidate snapshots that would exceed delaylimits may operate in a variety of ways, as described above with regardto step 320 of method 300. Substep 424 may be omitted from methods inaccordance with the present invention.

Substep 426 of excluding candidate snapshots that would exceed loadlimits may serve to exclude candidate snapshots that would exceed loadlimits may operate in a variety of ways, as described above withregarding to step 325 of method 300. Substep 426 may be omitted frommethods in accordance with the present invention.

One skilled in the art will realize that step 420 may comprise anynumber and any variety of substeps, if step 420 is used in a method inaccordance with the present invention. Step 420 may assure thatcandidate snapshots meet one, a few, or even many network parameters.Network parameters applied in step 420 may include parameters beyondthose described in substep 422, substep 424, and substep 426. Step 420may also apply network parameters in multiple ways. For example, networkparameters for delay may exclude candidate snapshots based upon averageend-to-end delay, maximum permissible end-to-end delay for eachorigin-destination node pair, and maximum permissible end-to-end delayfor each link in the IP network. Load limit network parameters and othernetwork parameters may likewise be applied to candidate snapshots inmultiple ways by step 420.

In step 430, candidate snapshots may be ordered based on the amount ofnetwork traffic information each snapshot is likely to provide. Otherorderings of candidate snapshots, including the order in which thesnapshots were created, may also be used, although other orderings arelikely to increase the number of snapshots required to obtain a fullrank routing matrix. Step 430 may also be omitted from methods inaccordance with the present invention, although the use of ordering step430 may serve to permit other steps of method 400 to proceed moreefficiently. One skilled in the art will note that step 430 is similarto step 330 of method 300. Step 330 may be performed using a rankingfunction. An example of one suitable ranking function is describedbelow.

In step 440 candidate snapshots may be evaluated. Step 440 of evaluatingcandidate snapshots serves to eliminate candidate snapshots that willnot increase the rank of the IP network's routing matrix or that are notneeded to obtain a full rank routing matrix. Step 440 of evaluating thecandidate snapshots may comprise a series of discrete substeps. Whileexample substeps are described herein, other substeps and/or otherordering of substeps may also be used. In substep 442, it is determinedwhether the next snapshot will increase the rank of the routing matrixof the IP network. If the conclusion of substep 442 is yes, the nextsnapshot will increase the rank of the routing matrix, method 400proceeds to substep 444 to determine whether the next snapshot will makethe routing matrix for rank. If the result of substep 442 is no, thenext candidate snapshot will not increase the rank of the routingmatrix, method 400 proceeds to substep 446. In substep 446, it isdetermined whether candidate snapshots remain. If candidate snapshotsremain, method 400 returns to substep 442 to evaluate the next candidatesnapshot. If no candidate snapshots remain, substep 446 proceeds to step452, as described further below. If the result of substep 442 is theconclusion that, yes, the next candidate snapshot will increase the rankof the routing matrix, method 400 proceeds to substep 444. In substep444, it is determined whether the next candidate snapshot will make therouting matrix full rank. If the conclusion is no, method 400 proceedsto substep 446, wherein it is determined whether candidate snapshotsremain, as discussed above. If the conclusion of substep 444 is yes,that next candidate snapshot will make the routing matrix full rank,method 400 proceeds to substep 448. In substep 448, the remainingcandidate snapshots are discarded. The method thereafter proceeds tostep 470, as shall be discussed further below. In substep 446, aresponse of no indicates that no candidate snapshots remain, and therouting matrix is not yet full rank. Method 400 may then proceed to step452.

In step 452, it is determined whether the candidate snapshots should beexpanded. Step 452 of method 400 is reached if the candidate snapshotspresently available are not sufficient to render the routing matrix fullrank. If, for any reason, candidate snapshots are not to be expanded,method 400 may proceed to step 470, as shall be discussed below. Even ifavailable candidate snapshots do not render the routing matrix fullrank, the increased rank of routing matrix may be used to provideimproved modeling of the traffic of an IP network. If the result of step452 is the conclusion that candidate snapshots are to be expanded,method 400 proceeds to step 460.

In step 460, the candidate snapshots may be expanded. Step 460 may beomitted from methods in accordance with the present invention. Candidatesnapshots may be expanded in a number of ways, some of which areillustrated as substeps in FIG. 4. Not all substeps of step 460illustrated in FIG. 4 need be used, and substeps not illustrated mayalso be used. Step 460 may utilize candidate snapshots excluded in step420 but retained for use if candidate snapshots are to be excluded.

For example, in substep 461, candidate snapshots may be expanded toinclude snapshots that change two link weights. Subset 461 may furtherlimit snapshots to those that change two adjacent link weights. Bychanging only adjacent link weights in substep 461, rather than any pairof link weights in the network, the resulting network behavior may bemore acceptable, more easily predicted, and more manageable for networkoperators. Substep 461 may also impose additional constraints, such asrequiring that the link weights be set within certain parameters, anexample of which is described below. The restrictiveness of substep 461may vary without departing from the scope of the present invention.

In substep 462, the candidate snapshots may be expanded to include thosethat change three link weights. By limiting the links for which weightsare changed in substep 462 to those that form a triangle in the network,the impact upon network traffic and behavior may be more predictable andmanageable for a network operator. Substep 462 may also imposeadditional constraints, such as requiring that the link weights be setwithin certain parameters, an example of which is described below. Therestrictiveness of substep 462 may vary without departing from the scopeof the present invention.

In substep 463, candidate snapshots may be expanded by excludingcandidate snapshots based upon more lenient network link weight limitsthan those imposed in substep 422 of step 420, if substep 422 wasemployed. For example, if substep 422 limited candidate snapshots tothose that altered a weight only within a specified range of the link'sweight, substep 463 could expand candidate snapshots to any that complywith minimum and maximum link weight restrictions of the IP network.Substep 463 may even relax link weight constraints beyond thosegenerally applied to the IP network.

In substep 464, candidate snapshots may be expanded by excludingsnapshots using a delay limit more lenient than the delay limit imposedin substep 424 of step 420, if substep 424 was used. Substep 464 mayeven remove delay limits altogether.

In substep 465, candidate snapshots may be expanded by excludingcandidate snapshots based upon load limits using more lenient loadlimits than those imposed in substep 426 of step 420, if substep 426 wasemployed. Substep 465 may even remove load limits altogether.

While example substeps that may be used to expand candidate snapshotsare described herein, other substeps and/or other combinations ofsubsteps may be used to expand candidate snapshots if such an expansionis necessary. Of course, other substeps may be used in step 460 toexpand the candidate snapshots by, for example, relaxing or entirelyremoving limitations placed upon candidate snapshots in prior steps ofmethod 400.

After candidate snapshots have been expanded in step 460, method 400 mayreturn to step 430 of ordering candidate snapshots. Step 430 may serveto order only the new snapshots, or it may reorder all candidatesnapshots. Method 400 may thereafter proceed to step 440 of evaluatingcandidate snapshots, and then continue as described above. Step 440 mayevaluate only the new snapshots, or it may re-evaluate all candidatesnapshots. It should be noted that if step 460 has already fullyexpanded candidate snapshots and step 452 is reached again, the method400 may appropriately determine that there is no further need to seek toexpand candidate snapshots, as candidate snapshots have already beenfully expanded. However, step 460 may also be used to iteratively andgradually expand candidate snapshots. For example, in the first passthrough step 460, only a single substep, such as substep 461, may beemployed. If method 400 thereafter returns to step 460 to further expandcandidate snapshots, an additional substep, such as substep 462, may beapplied to expand candidate snapshots further. Alternatively, on a firstpass, step 460 may expand candidate snapshots by applying, for example,a first more lenient set of network parameters, such as link weightlimits, delay limits, and load limits, while on a subsequent applicationapply yet more lenient network parameters. By way of further example,step 460 may first expand candidate snapshots to those that change theweights of adjacent links and then, if necessary, to those that changethe weights of triangular links, and then, if necessary, to those thatchange the weights of two or three links in any configuration. In thisfashion, candidate snapshots may be expanded until the IP network'srouting matrix is full rank while minimizing the degree to which thecandidate snapshots adversely impact the performance of the IP network.One skilled in the art will realize that the gradual expansion ofcandidate snapshots may be adapted to the specific needs in a particularIP network.

Once method 400 reaches step 470, whether through step 448 or step 452,step 470 proceeds to apply the next candidate snapshot to the linkweights of the IP network. If step 470 has been reached for the firsttime in the application of method 400, the next candidate snapshot toapply will be the first candidate snapshot. Step 470 may apply thesnapshots in the order determined by step 430. Method 400 may thenproceed to step 472. In step 472, link utilization data is collected forthe applied snapshot. Step 482, may determine whether candidatesnapshots remain. If candidate snapshots remain, method 400 may returnto step 470, in which the next candidate snapshot is applied. If theresult of step 482 is that no candidate snapshots remain to be applied,method 400 proceeds to end 490.

One skilled in the art will note that method 200, method 300, and method400 all provide methods for expanding the routing matrix of an IPnetwork by altering link weights in the network. The expanded routingmatrix may be used in further methods in accordance with the presentinvention to model the traffic matrix. However, the results of method200, method 300, method 400, or other methods in accordance with thepresent invention may be utilized to provide additional networkinformation for use with other modeling methods than those hereinafterdescribed, as well. Further examples of applying method 200, method 300,and method 400 shall be described below.

Referring now to FIG. 5, a method in accordance with the presentinvention for modeling network traffic in accordance with the presentinvention is illustrated. In step 510, the traffic matrix is estimatedbased upon the measured link utilization vector, the known routingmatrix, and an estimated covariance matrix, with the diagonal of thecovariance matrix being the variance. It should be noted that the knownrouting matrix may be an aggregate routing matrix constructed frommultiple routing matrices using different sets of link weights, and thatthe link utilization vector may likewise be constructed from multiplelink utilization vectors, each corresponding to a set of link weights.In the first application of step 510, the covariance matrix may beestimated to be the identity matrix, although various approximationssuch as a previously calculated covariance matrix may also be used. Instep 520, the covariance matrix may be estimated based upon the measuredlink utilization vector, the known routing matrix, and the estimatedtraffic matrix. In applying step 520, the estimated traffic matrix maybe the value arrived at in the most recent application of step 510. Instep 530, it is determined whether the estimates of the traffic matrixand/or the covariance matrix have converged. If the estimates have notconverged, method 500 returns to step 510. If the estimates haveconverged, method 500 proceeds to step 540, and the estimates of thetraffic matrix and the covariance matrix are accepted. More particulardescriptions of example methods implementing method 500 are describedbelow, as are other methods in accordance with the present invention forestimating the traffic matrix of an IP network. It should be noted thatthe methods in accordance with the present invention may be employedwithout regard to how the link utilization values were collected and howthe routing matrix of the IP network is rendered full rank. For example,the practice of method 500 does not require that a full rank routingmatrix was obtained using method 200, method 300, or method 400.

As described above, method 200, method 300, and method 400 provide amethod for increasing the rank of the routing matrix of an IP network,thereby enabling better modeling of the traffic matrix of the IPnetwork. It should be recalled that an IP network may comprise aplurality of links connecting a plurality of nodes. The routingconfiguration in an IP network may be determined by an IGP routingprotocol. In practice, a large IP network may often use a link-stateprotocol such as ISIS or OSPF for routing within the network. Using sucha protocol, every link in the network is assigned a weight, and the costof a path in the network is measured as the sum of the weight of alllinks along the path. Traffic may be routed between any two nodes alongthe shortest route path, also referred to as the minimum cost path, withthe minimum cost path being computed using an algorithm such asDijkstra's shortest path algorithm.

As described above, the traffic observed on each link may be theaggregation of traffic between one or more origin-destination node pairsfor which the shortest path route includes that link. As describedabove, the relationship between the traffic matrix, the routing matrix,and the link counts can be described by a system of linear equationsY=AX where Y is the vector of link counts, X is the traffic matrixorganized as a vector, and A denotes a routing matrix, in which elementa_(ij) is equal to one if origin-destination node pair j traverses linki and is zero otherwise. If the IP network allows traffic splitting, theelements of the routing matrix can take on fractional values. Often, thesystem Y=AX is underconstrained because the routing matrix A is of lessthan full rank, thereby preventing a solution for the traffic matrix Xfrom being obtained.

If a link weight is changed in the network, traffic between some of theorigin-destination pairs on that link could be moved onto other paths.SNMP protocols may be used to measure link utilization before and aftersuch a change. Analysis of the SNMP link utilization data underdifferent routing conditions may decrease the ambiguity inherent in linkmeasurements. As described above, the term snapshot may be used todenote different routing configurations in the IP network, with eachsnapshot having its own set of link weights. As a result, the routingmatrix, denoted A, may vary for snapshot k₁ and snapshot k₂. For thefirst snapshot, the routing matrix associated with it is A(k₁). For thesecond snapshot, the associated routing matrix is A(k₂). Each subsequentsnapshot would likewise have an associated routing matrix. The rank oftwo or more matrices, such as routing matrices for different snapshots,may be greater when considered together than the rank of the originalmatrix. This expansion of rank would happen if some of the new linkcounts generated equations that were linearly independent of those inthe original system. By repeatedly changing link weights, sufficientindependent equations may be generated to have a full rank routingmatrix.

This approach of modifying link weights in snapshots and systematicallyapplying snapshots may be applied in a variety of fashions. The examplefurther described below is one method in accordance with the presentinvention for obtaining a full link routing matrix by altering linkweights. Other methods, such as methods that do not impose performanceconstraints upon the snapshots or that do not order the snapshots, mayalso be used without departing from the scope of the present invention.To adapt a method in accordance with the present invention forapplication in an existing IP network, however, it may be necessary tolimit snapshots to those that do not exceed certain network parameters,some examples of which are described further below. In such fashion,only snapshots deemed suitably safe for network operation may be appliedto the IP network.

An IP network may be represented by an undirected graph G(N,L) whereN={1, . . . , N} corresponds to the set of nodes, and L={l₁, . . . ,l_(L)} corresponds to the set of links connecting the nodes. Apropagation delay d_(h) and an integral link weight w_(h) may beassociated with each link within the network. W={w₁, . . . , w_(L)} maybe the initial set of link weights within the network. P={p₁, p₂, . . ., p_(P)} may denote the set of origin-destination pairs flowing acrossthe network. Traffic between each origin-destination node pair may berouted along the minimum cost path between the origin node anddestination node with an end-to-end delay d_(p) equal to the sum of thepropagation delays of each link along the path. If there are multipleequal length minimum cost paths between an origin and a destinationnode, the traffic may be split evenly across all the equal path links iftraffic splitting is permitted in the IP network. The nominal trafficmatrix may be represented as a column vector X=(X₁, X₂, . . . ,X_(P))^(T), where X_(p) represents the volume of traffic generated forthe origin-destination pair p during a measurement interval.

The routing in the IP network using snapshot k is described by routingmatrix A(k), which is an L×P matrix. Specifically, the element of A(k)in the l^(th) row and the p^(th) column is defined as the fraction oftraffic for the origin-destination pair p that is routed on link l undersnapshot k. For example, if all of the traffic for an origin-destinationpair p is routed along link l, then A(k)_(lp)=1. If there are twoshortest paths between an origin and destination node pair and link l isin one of those paths, then A(k)^(lp)=½. If no traffic for anorigin-destination pair P is routed along link l, then A (k)_(lp)=0

The traffic generated by every origin-destination node pair may bestationary or nonstationary from one snapshot to the next. While themodeling of a traffic matrix may be different, depending upon whetherdata is stationary or nonstationary, the method for identifying andapplying such snapshots may be the same whether data is stationary ornonstationary.

In an operating IP network, there may be a working set of link weightsthat may be referred to as a snapshot zero. In accordance with thepresent invention, a set of k snapshots 1, 2, . . . , k are synthesized,such that corresponding link measurement vectors Y(0), Y(1), . . . ,Y(K) completely determine the traffic matrix.

The link measurement vectors Y(k) may be stacked into an aggregate linkmeasurement column vector Y. Likewise, the routing matrices A(k) may bestacked into an aggregate routing matrix A, i.e. A=[A^(T)(0), A^(T)(1),. . . , A^(T)(K)]^(T). Using this notation, Y=AX. If the aggregaterouting matrix A has full rank, then the traffic matrix X can be fullydetermined by measurement of Y.

While a variety of approaches may be used to identify and applysnapshots until a full rank aggregate routing matrix is obtained, in anoperating IP network the network operator may desire to avoid applyingsnapshots that will exceed certain network operating parameters, suchas, for example, an average connection delay in excess of predeterminedlimits. In an operational IP network, link weights may be changed onlyinfrequently. The operator of an IP network may prefer not to move thenetwork too far away from an established acceptable operatingconfiguration. Furthermore, changing link weights may requiremodifications to multiple routers in the network, and the difficulty ofimplementing a link weight change may increase as the number of linkschanged increases. A snapshot that falls outside of these or otheracceptable parameters may be excluded. The exclusion may be temporary,meaning that the snapshot may be used if applying only acceptablesnapshots will not result in a full rank routing matrix, or may bepermanent.

By way of example, suppose that there are L links in an IP network. Thenetwork operator may require a predefined minimum link weight W_(min),and a predefined maximum link weight, W_(max). Weights may only take onan integral value in many networks, and thus the number of possibleweight settings for a single link is W=W_(max)−W_(min). A singlesnapshot corresponds to a set of L link weights, and thus the number ofpossible snapshots could be 2^((W) ^(L) ⁾, which for most working IPnetworks is an enormous number.

A method in accordance with the present invention may begin byidentifying a set of snapshots that involve a weight change on a singlelink. From there, candidate snapshots may be further limited to thosewhich will result in a change in the routing for at least oneorigin-destination node pair. Such snapshots may not all meetoperational parameters such as load and delay limits, so the candidatesnapshots may be further reduced to those which comply withpredetermined operating parameters. Since the number of possiblesnapshots remaining may be very large, these snapshots may then beordered for further evaluation. One method for ordering candidatesnapshots using a ranking function is described below. This ordering ofsnapshots may be applied to build an aggregate routing matrix by addingsnapshots that will increase the rank of the aggregate routing matrixuntil the aggregate routing matrix has full rank. If the candidatesnapshots do not result in a full rank routing matrix, further snapshotsmay be considered which involve changing multiple link weights, such aspairs or triplets of links, or that would violate the initialpredetermined operating parameters. One example of a method inaccordance with the present invention using six steps is describedbelow.

Step one may comprise pruning by route mapping. In this step, a set ofsnapshots may be identified, where each snapshot corresponds to a weightchange on a single link. Let Δ′_(h)={δw_(h)(p₁), . . . , δw_(h)(p_(P))}be the set of potential weight perturbations to apply to a given linkl_(h). Recall that P is the number of origin-destination node pairs inthe network. For each link l_(h)εL, the set Δ′_(h) may be determined asfollows.

First, for an origin-destination node pair p, let

₀(p) be the path length of the minimum cost path from the origin node ofp to the destination node of p under the initial set of link weights W.Let

_(h)(p) be the length of the shortest path which is constrained to uselink l_(h). More precisely, let the origin and destination nodes of p bes and t, respectively, and let the initial and terminal nodes of linkl_(h) be X and y. With this notation,

_(h)(p)=d_(sX)+w_(h)+d_(yt), where d_(sX) is defined as the length ofthe shortest path from node s to node X and d_(yt) is the length of theshortest path from node y to node t. By definition of

₀(p), for any link l_(h)

₀(p)−

_(h)(p)≦0. Furthermore, if

₀(P)−

_(h)(p)<0 and the link weight of l_(h) is changed from w_(h) to w_(h)+

₀(p)−

_(h)(p), then under the new set of link weights, the shortest path fororigin-destination node pair p will pass through link l_(h). It shouldbe further noted that there may be more than one shortest path for theorigin-destination node pair p, in which case all traffic for the pairmay be split evenly across all such paths if path splitting is allowedin the IP network. If there is only one shortest length path includingl_(h) for the origin-destination node pair P, then

₀(p)−

_(h)(p)=0 and changing the weight of link l_(h) from w_(h) to w_(h)−1will result in all traffic for the origin-destination pair p beingrouted over link l_(h). Based upon these observations, for each l_(h)and p, define δw_(h)(p)=

₀(p)−

_(h)(p) if

₀(p)−

_(h)(p)<0 and δw_(h)(p)=−1 if

₀(p)−

_(h)(p)=0 and link l_(h) lies along the exactly one shortest path fororigin-destination node pair p. Recalling that any link weight changemust result in a new weight that lies within the range of W_(min) andW_(max), the set of link weight perturbations for link l_(h) may bepruned to the set Δ_(h), where Δ_(h)={δw_(h)(p):δw_(h)(p)<0 andw_(h)+δw_(h)(p)ε[W_(min), W_(max)], ∀pεP}.

After considering all possible links l_(h) within the network, a set ofpossible snapshots Δ=∪_(h=1) ^(L)Δ_(h) may be obtained, each of whichcorresponds to a single link weight change that results in traffic froman origin-destination node pair being moved on at least one link. Thissubset of candidate snapshots may be significantly less than the totalpossible snap shots, meaning that there may be a significant savingsover considering all possible single weight changes.

It should be noted that there are multiple ways to generate the set ofcandidate snapshots. One way would be to apply any possible weight onany link. In that case, for any link l_(h)εL there would beW=W_(max)−W_(min) possible solutions. Then, |Δ|=Σ_(h=1) ^(L)|Δ_(h)|=WL.Another approach would be to attempt to force any origin-destinationnode pair on each possible link. Then |Δ|=Σ_(h=1) ^(L)Δ_(h)=PL/2, sincethe routing used by origin-destination node pair s→d is the same as theroute used by d→s. The first approach would generate a number ofsolutions proportional to the cardinality of the weight allowed, whilethe second generates a number of solutions that is proportional to thecardinality of the origin-destination node pairs. If the purpose is todisaggregate a specific subset of origin-destination node pairs, thesecond method requires the generation of fewer solutions. Also, IPnetwork operators are likely to eventually increase the number of bitsused to encode a link weight from six to eight, making the cardinalityof W increase from sixty-four to two hundred fifty-six, in which casethe second of these two example approaches may be expected to generatemany fewer candidate solutions, thereby reducing the complexity of themethod. However, either of these two approaches, or other approaches,may be used.

In step two candidate snapshots may be pruned by performanceconstraints. Performance constraints may be operating parameters such asdelay limits and load limits. All of the candidate snapshots in the setΔ may be examined to build a set of candidate snapshots as a set oftuples S={(l_(h), w_(hi))}, where each tuple represents a deviation fromthe original weights set by setting the weight of the link l_(h) to thevalue w_(hi), defined as w_(hi)=w_(h)+Δw_(h)(p_(i)). For each tuple, theassociated routing matrix A_(hi) may be computed. For each candidatesnapshot, the new average end-to-end delay for all origin-destinationnode pairs may be computed. If this result violates a predetermineddelay limit the snapshot may be excluded. If the snapshot meets thedelay constraint and there is an available traffic matrix X_(old) fromprior modeling, then this traffic matrix may be used on the new topologyto compute a prediction of the resulting link loads by calculating thematrix product A_(hi)X_(old). If any of the resulting link loads violatea predetermined load limit, then the snapshot may also be excluded.Snapshots excluded may be retained for future consideration, for exampleif the snapshots need to be expanded to obtain a full rank routingmatrix. For example, excluded snapshots and their associated routingmatrix may be maintained in a temporary storage locations.

It should be noted that it is possible for different weightperturbations to have the same net impact on the routing of the IPnetwork. Therefore, for those snapshots that are within both the delayand load limits, the snapshots may be included only if the correspondingrouting matrix is not identical to the routing matrix for anotherincluded snapshot. In this manner, redundant snapshots may be avoided.

In step three the candidate snapshots may be ordered. All possiblesubsets of candidate snapshots could be considered with the rank of theassociated aggregate routing matrix computed for each subset ofsnapshots. However, since the number of subsets may be very large thiscould be computationally prohibitive in many circumstances. Instead, inthis step the candidate snapshots may be ordered for future evaluationbased upon the amount of network traffic information each snapshot islikely to provide.

A ranking function may be defined for application to each snapshot. Theordering among the snapshots may then be performed according to theranking function, with the highest ranking snapshots at the top of theorder. While an example ranking function is described below, otherranking functions would be used as well.

The objective of the ranking function may be to identify the snapshotsthat appear to be the most promising, in that they will likely result ina large increase in the rank of the aggregate routing matrix. Supposethat a given perturbation moves exactly one origin-destination node pairoff of some link and on to link l_(h). In this case, the perturbationdetermines the traffic volume for that origin-destination node pairexactly, its value being the difference between the link count on l_(h)before and after the change. Since a single weight change can movemultiple origin-destination node pairs, it is possible to learn morethan one origin-destination node pair exactly in one weight changeevent. Once an origin-destination node pair is known exactly, it may bereferred to as a well-known origin-destination node pair. The goal ofconstructing the present ranking function is to reflect the impact onthe number of newly well-known origin-destination node pairs created bythe snapshot, as well as a general measure of the amount of informationgained in implementing snapshot. An example of one possible rankingfunction is described below.

In defining the ranking function, let Γ_(hi) be the set oforigin-destination node pairs whose routing is effected by changing thelink weight on l_(h) to the new value w_(hi)=w_(h)+Δw_(h)(p_(i)). Letβ_(hi)(p) be a primary variable that is equal to one if theorigin-destination node pair p uses the link l_(h) and zero otherwise,with respect to the new set of link weights after changing the linkweight of l_(h) to w_(hi), as described above.

For a link l_(h) which belongs to a new link on a path for anorigin-destination node pair p_(t) after the link weight change,consider the sum Σ_(pεΓ) _(hi) _(/p) _(t) β_(hi)(p). This sum counts allthe origin-destination node pairs moved onto link l_(h) other than p_(t)at the same time p_(t) is moved. If this sum is zero, then only p_(t)has been moved on link l_(h). Let R_(hi)(p_(t)) be the set of new linksalong the path used by origin-destination node pair p_(t) after applyingthe weight w_(hi), which is to say the set of links that are containedin a shortest path for p_(t) after changing the link weight w_(h) tow_(hi) but are not included in any shortest path for p_(t) for theoriginal set of weights W. The ambiguity of p_(t) after the weightchange (l_(h), w_(hi)) may be defined as

$\begin{matrix}{{m_{hi}\left( p_{t} \right)} = {\min_{l_{h} \in R_{hi}}{\sum\limits_{p \in {\Gamma_{hi}/p_{t}}}^{\;}\;{\beta_{hi}(p)}}}} \\{\forall{w_{hi}:{\left( {l_{h},w_{hi}} \right) \in S}}}\end{matrix}.$This definition takes the minimum of these per-link sums across all thenew links in the new path of the origin-destination node pair p_(t). Ifm_(hi)(P_(t))=0 then p_(t) becomes a well-known origin-destination nodepair. This can be viewed as a measure of disaggregation. For example, avalue of m_(hi)(p_(t))=2 means that two origin-destination node pairs,including p_(t), have been disaggregated from their original bundlingand moved to link l_(h).

The quantity m_(hi)(p_(t)) may be defined for a singleorigin-destination node pair p_(t). A metric may be defined over allorigin-destination node pairs affected by changing the link weight ofl_(h) to the value w_(hi), the metric being

$\begin{matrix}{M_{hi} = {\sum\limits_{p_{t} \in \Gamma_{hi}}^{\;}\;\left( {1/\left( {{{Bm}_{hi}\left( p_{t} \right)} + 1} \right)} \right)}} \\{\;{\forall{w_{hi}:{\left( {l_{h},w_{hi}} \right) \in S}}}}\end{matrix}.$In the above, B is a large parameter. It should be noted that ifm_(hi)(p_(t))=0 for all p_(t) affected by the weight change event(l_(h),w_(hi)) then M_(hi) is equal to the number of well-knownorigin-destination node pairs. Further note that for all p_(t) which arenot well known as a result of weight changes on link l_(h) thenm_(hi)(p_(t))≧1 and there are at most P such origin-destination nodepairs. Thus, if B is large enough so that P/(B+1)<1, then a single newlywell known origin-destination node pair is weighted more in the metricthan all the terms which measure how much information is gained fororigin-destination node pairs which do not become well known.

For example, suppose there are two weight changes to compare, w₁ and w₂.The first change w₁ moves only one origin-destination node pair P₁, butin a way that it can be known exactly. In this case, m_(w) ₁ (p₁)=0. Thesecond change moves three origin-destination node pairs p₁, p₂, and p₃,but none of them can be completely isolated from the others. If eachlink is shared by two origin-destination node pairs that were rerouted,then m_(w) ₂ (p₁)=m_(w) ₂ (p₂)=m_(w) ₂ (p₃)=1 Without the B factor, w₂would produce a value of M_(w) ₂ =1.5. Because this is greater thanM_(w) ₁ =1, it would make snapshot w₂ more attractive than w₁. However,if it is considered better to know something exactly than simply to getnew link counts without any complete disaggregation, this is the reverseof what is desired. By using a large B factor, the proposed snapshot w₁will achieve a higher priority than w₂ since M_(w) ₂

M_(w) ₁ . The snapshots are then ranked according to the correspondingvalue of M_(hi) for each snapshot, where the snapshot with the largestvalue of M_(hi) is at the top of the list.

In step four the candidate single link snapshots may be evaluated. Thesnapshots may be evaluated in the order defined in step three, describedabove. This evaluation may be done by determining whether or not eachsnapshot increases the rank of the routing matrix obtained so far. If A₀denotes the initial routing matrix based on the original set of weights,and if A denotes the improved aggregate routing matrix after usablesnapshots have been appended, then when the process is completed A willbe the final aggregate routing matrix with the routing matrix for eachincluded snapshots appended. Each entry (l_(h), w_(hi))εS may beevaluated sequentially by appending its associated routing matrix A_(hi)to A and computing the rank of the combined routing matrix. Thesnapshots may be considered in the order determined in step three, witha highest ranking snapshots evaluated first. Only if the rank Aincreases is A_(hi) kept in A, otherwise the snapshot is discarded. Theevaluation may stop when the rank of A is equal to P, meaning that therouting matrix is full rank. If all the candidate snapshots areevaluated and the rank of A is still less than P meaning less than fullrank, the example method may proceed to step five.

In step five multiple weight changes may be considered. In largenetworks performing only single link weight changes may not be enough toguarantee that a full rank routing matrix will be obtained. Accordingly,in step five of the present example simultaneous changes of either twoor three link weight changes may be considered. While more than threelink weight changes in a single snapshot could be considered, in manycases IP network operators may be hesitant to employ more than threeweight changes at a single time due to the uncertain results ofsimultaneously applying such a large number of weight changes to an IPnetwork.

In step five snapshots that would change pairs of link weights may firstbe considered. For each snapshot, the pair on links may be required tobe adjacent. A pair of links may be considered to be adjacent if theincident to a common node. For each pair of adjacent links, possiblelink weight changes may be limited to only two weight changes, such aschanging the weight of both links to W_(min) or changing both weights toW_(max). This limitation while not necessary, may simplify the use of amethod in accordance with the present invention. For each resultingsnapshot, the delay limit and load limit constraints may be checked. Ifthe delay limit and load limit constraints are met, the snapshot may beevaluated to determine whether it would increase the rank of theresulting aggregate routing matrix and, if so, the snapshot may beincluded in the list of snapshots and the aggregate routing matrix maybe updated accordingly. If the aggregate routing matrix is still notfull rank, additional snapshots changing a pair of adjacent link weightsas described above may be considered. This process may continue untilall possible snapshots of adjacent pairs of links have been considered.

If all snapshots corresponding to changing pairs of link weight changesas described above are exhausted, and the rank of the aggregate routingmatrix has not yet reached P, then snapshots corresponding to changes ofthree link weights may be considered. To simplify the process, one mayconsider only triplets of links that form triangles in the IP networki.e., triplets of links in the form {(a,b),(b,c),(c,a)}. The process maybe further simplified by considering only triplet of link changes thoughall weights are changed to either W_(min) or to W_(max). As with changesto pairs of link weights, this limitation is not necessary, but maysimplify the use of a method in accordance with the present invention.For each such snapshot, the delay limit and load limit constraints maybe checked. If the load limit and delay limit constraints are satisfied,the corresponding routing matrix may be examined to determine whetherthe aggregate routing matrix is increased in rank. If the rank of theaggregate routing matrix would be increased, the snapshot may be addedto the list and the aggregate routing matrix updated accordingly. If theaggregate routing matrix is still not full rank, further snapshotschanging triplets of links in this fashion may be considered. Theprocess may continue until the aggregate routing matrix has full rank orall snapshots corresponding to triplets of link weight changes areexhausted.

In step six the example method may continue by relaxing performanceconstraints if the aggregate routing matrix is still not full rank. Instep six the delay and load constraints may be relaxed. For example, thedelay constraint may be removed all together and the load constraint maybe increased to, for example, ninety percent of link capacity. The setof candidate snapshots considered at this point may be those that wereset aside earlier. This set will include snapshots that pass the pruningof step one but failed the pruning of step two. With this set, themethod of step two may be performed again with modified performanceconstraints through step three and step four.

In practice, it is expected that the use of example method through stepsix, if necessary, will result in a full rank routing matrix for all, orat least most, existing IP networks. Even if a full rank routing matrixcannot be obtained in accordance with the present example method, theadditional information provided using this example method or othermethods in accordance with the present invention will greatly enhancethe modeling and forecasting of network traffic in an IP network.

Once a full rank routing matrix is obtained, whether by using one of theabove described example methods, other methods in accordance with thepresent invention, or through other means, the traffic matrix may beestimated using the full rank routing matrix and the collected linkutilization data. Further methods in accordance with the presentinvention, examples of which are described below, are useful forestimating the traffic matrix.

Even with a full rank linear system, the problem of traffic matrixestimation is not entirely solved. In fact, the process of obtainingmultiple sets of link measurements over disparate time intervals meansthat the dynamic nature of traffic must be contended with. It may bethat measurements have been taken during a time period where networktraffic is essentially stationary, but the traffic matrix also could bein a non-stationary regime. A methodology in accordance with the presentinvention may be used to estimate traffic matrices under any fluctuatingenvironment, whether stationary or non-stationary. The example methodsof estimating a traffic matrix described below assume that a full rankrouting matrix is available. Whether the full rank routing matrix isobtained using a method such as those described above or through someother means is immaterial to the methods of modeling a traffic matrix inaccordance with the present invention.

In methods of estimating a traffic matrix in accordance with the presentinvention, each origin-destination node pair may be modeled in time bytwo components, its mean value and its traffic fluctuation. By modelingthese components separately, the model may readily be extended to bothstationary and non-stationary scenarios. The methods in accordance withthe present invention assume only that the fluctuations process is zeromean. The methods in accordance with the present invention provideclosed form estimates for the first and second order moments of atraffic matrix for both stationary and non-stationary environments.Second order moment refers to the entire covariance structure. Thecovariance is estimated directly in accordance with the presentinvention because it is hard to know the relationship between mean andvariance exactly, and a relationship may change over time as trafficpatterns evolve. The methods in accordance with the present inventionare able to explicitly compute the variance of the error for eachorigin-destination node pair. This enables the carrier to know which ofthe origin-destination node pairs are likely to have the largest errors.

In formulating the traffic demand estimation problem, consider a networkrepresented by a collection of N={1, 2, . . . , N} nodes. Each node mayrepresent a set of co-located routers in a PoP, although other levels ofabstraction may be used as well. A set of L directed links L⊂N×N is alsogiven. Each link may represent an aggregate of transmission resourcesbetween two PoPs, although other levels of abstraction may be used aswell. It is assumed that there are no self directed links, meaning thereare no links l in the form of l=(i,i). A finite time horizon consistingof K disjoint measurement intervals may be considered, indexed from 0 toK−1. For simplicity, it may be assumed that measurement intervals are ofequal time duration, but this requirement may be relaxed. Each node is asource of traffic which is routed through other nodes, ultimatelydeparting the network. Consider an origin-destination node pair p, andlet X_(p)(k) be the amount of traffic associated with theorigin-destination node pair during the measurement interval k. X_(p)(k)is the amount of traffic originating from node n₁ that departs thenetwork at node n₂ during measurement interval k. It may be assumed thatthe measurement interval is long enough that traffic stored in thenetwork may be ignored. Let P denote the set of all origin-destinationnode pairs. There is a total of |P|=P=N²−N origin-destination nodepairs. The origin-destination node pairs p may be ordered to form acolumn vector X(k) whose components are X_(p)(k) in some predefinedorder.

Let Y₁(k) be the total volume of traffic which crosses a link lεL duringmeasurement interval k. The links may be ordered in a form of a columnvector whose components are Y₁(k) for all lεL. Let A_(l,p)(k) be thefraction of traffic from node pair p that traverses link l duringmeasurement interval k. Thus Y_(l)(k)=Σ_(pεP)A_(l,p)(k)X_(p)(k). Formingthe L×P matrix A(k) with elements {A_(l,p)(k)}, the result in matrixnotation is: Y(k)=A(k)X(k),k=0, 1, . . . , K−1. The Y(k) vector may becalled a link count vector, and A(k) may be called the routing matrix.In IP networks, the routing matrix A(k) during each measurement intervalk may be obtained by gathering topological information and the linkweights. The link counts Y(k) may be obtained by measuring linkutilization values, for example by using SNMP data.

The link weight changes may be different for each different k, so therouting matrices for A(k₁) and A(k₂) may be different. In fact, it isdesirable that the two matrices be sufficiently different so that therank of the new aggregate routing matrix A=[A^(T)(k₁), A^(T)(k₂)]^(T) islarger than the rank of either matrix alone.

It should be noted that instead of estimating X(k) for each k, methodsin accordance with the present invention may attempt to estimate thestatistical mean of X and the covariance of X(k). This means that thesum of the estimates for all origin-destination node pairs that cross agiven link l are not required to be equal to the link measurement valueY₁(k). The difference between Y₁(k) and the sum of the correspondingestimates may be accounted for by traffic fluctuations. As a practicalmatter in application, methods in accordance with the present inventionmay be directed mostly to traffic prediction, meaning that the meanvalue denoted E[X(k)] may be more important than the value of X(k).

It should be noted that traffic dynamics may have an impact on thetraffic matrix estimation problem. There is a strong periodicity intraffic at intervals of twenty-four hours, as would be expected due towork and play habits of Internet users. These are the expected diurnalpatterns. In most IP networks, it is likely that traffic over amulti-hour period fluctuates, and that the mean itself is shifting. Thusthe traffic matrix may not be stationary over multi-hour periods.

If all sets of measurements are collected within a period when thetraffic matrix is stationary, there are still fluctuations within thestationary regime. Optimally, these fluctuations should be explicitlymodeled in an estimation method. If all sets of measurements arecollected over a period of many hours, it is known that traffic maylikely not be stationary. A traffic matrix estimation method shouldpreferably include a model for non-stationary. If used to obtain a fullrank routing matrix, a method of deliberately changing link weights toforce changes in the routing of the IP network could involve changinglink weights at the same time each day, or it could involve changinglink weights over a sequence of continuous hours. In the former method,the traffic could be said to be stationary, but in the latter thetraffic would not. The advantage of taking measurements at the same timeeach day is that the estimation procedure is simpler, but this willyield only a traffic matrix for that short time period. The advantage oftaking measurements over consecutive periods is that all of the trafficmatrix behavior is captured, but the estimation may be more complex.Either approach is acceptable in accordance with the methods of thepresent invention.

Each image of routing under a given set of link weights may be called asnapshot, with each snapshot having its own routing matrix. Within eachsnapshot, the set of all link counts collected may be called a sample.Within each snapshot, multiple samples may be collected.

The first example of a method in accordance of the present inventiondescribed in detail herein is for a stationary traffic scenario. Thisscenario assumes that {X(k):k=0, 2, . . . , K−1} is a realization of asegment of a stationary discrete time random process. In particular, itis assumed that X(k)=X+W(k),K=0, 1, . . . , K−1, where {W(k)} are zeromean column vectors, meaning that E[W(k)]=0. The discrete time randomprocess {W(k)} represents the traffic fluctuation for theorigin-destination node pairs. W_(p)(k) may be defined as the p^(th)component of W(k).

In practice, for each measurement interval k there may be missing linkmeasurements due, for example, to collection errors, human errors, orother problems. In addition, depending upon network topology and therouting in measurement interval k, some equations may be redundant, thatis linearly dependent. For convenience, the missing or redundant rows ofthe matrix equation may be deleted to obtain a set of reduced equations,Y′(k)=A′(k)X(k),k=0, 1, . . . K−1 where Y′(k) is the M_(k)×1 columnvector obtained from Y(k) by eliminating the missing or redundant rows,and where A′(k) is obtained by deleting the same rows from A(k).

By definition, rank (A′(k))=M_(k). Typically M_(k)<P, so it is notpossible to infer the value of X(k) from Y′(k), even if there are nomissing links measurements. It is assumed that the routing can changeduring different measurement intervals, so it is possible thatA(k₁)≠A(k₂) if k₁≠k₂.

In accordance with the present invention, the following matrices may bedefined, using block matrix notation:

${Y = \begin{bmatrix}{Y^{\prime}(0)} \\{Y^{\prime}(1)} \\\ldots \\{Y^{\prime}\left( {K - 1} \right)}\end{bmatrix}},\mspace{14mu}{A = \begin{bmatrix}{A^{\prime}(0)} \\{A^{\prime}(1)} \\\ldots \\{A^{\prime}\left( {K - 1} \right)}\end{bmatrix}},\mspace{14mu}{W = \begin{bmatrix}{W(0)} \\{W(1)} \\\ldots \\{W\left( {K - 1} \right)}\end{bmatrix}},\mspace{14mu}{and}$ $C = {\begin{bmatrix}{A^{\prime}(0)} & 0 & \ldots & 0 \\0 & {A^{\prime}(1)} & \ldots & 0 \\\ldots & \ldots & \ldots & \ldots \\0 & 0 & \ldots & {A^{\prime}\left( {K - 1} \right)}\end{bmatrix}.}$

In terms of dimensions, it should be noted that Y is an M-dimensionalcolumn vector, where M=Σ_(k=0) ^(K−1)M_(k), A is M×P dimensional matrix,W is a KP-dimensional column vector, and C is an M×KP matrix. Based uponthe above definitions, Y=AX+CW.

The vector X, which is the traffic matrix, represents the volume oftraffic exchanged between an origin node and a destination node, and theaim of the method is to estimate X from the observations of Y(1), Y(2),. . . Y(K). This estimate of X can be used as an estimate of X forfuture time intervals. The estimate of X may be denoted by {circumflexover (X)}.

One possible approach for synthesizing an estimate of {circumflex over(X)} is to minimize the Euclidean norm of Y−Az, in which case theestimate of X would be

$\hat{X} = {\arg\;{\min\limits_{z}{\left\{ {\left( {Y - {Az}} \right)^{T}\left( {Y - {Az}} \right)} \right\}.}}}$The solution of this optimization problem is known as the pseudo-inverseof A, and is given by {circumflex over (X)}=(A^(T)A)⁻¹A^(T)Y. Since itis assumed that the matrix A has full rank (P), this ensures that thesquare matrix A^(T)A is positive definite and thus of full rank, andhence invertible. Thus the pseudo-inverse is well defined.

While the above provides an estimate for X that may be useful formodeling the traffic matrix of an IP network, it does not provide anestimate of the covariance of the traffic of the IP network. To estimatethe traffic of the IP network and the covariance of the traffic, thetraffic may be expressed as a function of the covariance and thecovariance expressed as a function of the traffic, with each estimatediteratively until the estimates converge. While using the abovepseudo-inverse estimate does not require knowledge of the statistics ofW, knowledge of the statistics of W can be used to improve the estimateof X. For example, the components of Y may have different variances. Forexample, if the variance of a component of Y is small, the square of thedifference between that component and the corresponding component ofA{circumflex over (X)} should be heavily weighted in the determinationof an estimate of X. To this end, B may be defined as the covariancematrix of W, meaning that B=E[WW^(T)]. With this definition thecovariance vector of Y is equal to CBC^(T).

Of course, B is initially unknown. The iterative estimation process canbegin, however, by assuming that B is known. Based upon this assumption,the traffic matrix x can be solved as a function of B and knownquantities, such as link utilization and the routing matrix.

The best linear estimate of X given Y, in the sense of minimizingE[(Y−Az)^(T)(Y−Az)] with respect to z is known as the best linearMinimum Mean Square Error estimator, often referred to as the MMSE. Thebest linear MMSE estimate of X can be obtained from the Gauss-Markovtheorem. The best linear MMSE estimator {circumflex over (X)} of x givenY is {circumflex over (X)}={circumflex over(X)}(Y,B)=(A^(T)(CBC^(T))⁻¹A)⁻¹A^(T)(CBC^(T))⁻¹Y. Note that the estimate{circumflex over (X)} in the above reduces to the pseudo inverseestimate when CBC^(T) is the identity matrix. If W has a Gaussiandistribution, it can be verified that this estimate is in fact themaximum likelihood estimate of X.

Regardless of whether or not W is Gaussian, the estimate above isunbiased, in that E[{circumflex over (X)}]=X, and furthermore that{circumflex over (X)}(Y,B)=X+(A^(T)(CBC^(T))⁻¹A)⁻¹A^(T)(CBC^(T))⁻¹CW andE[({circumflex over (X)}−X)({circumflex over(X)}−X)^(T)]=(A^(T)(CBC^(T))⁻¹A)⁻¹. Note that this allows an estimate ofthe accuracy of the estimate of {circumflex over (X)} given Y and B. Inparticular, the p^(th) element of the diagonal of the matrixE[({circumflex over (X)}−X)({circumflex over (X)}−X)^(T)] is the meansquare error of the estimate of the p^(th) element of the trafficmatrix. Now,

$\begin{matrix}{\hat{X} = {{\left( {{A^{T}\left( {CBC}^{T} \right)}^{- 1}A} \right)^{- 1}{A^{T}\left( {CBC}^{T} \right)}^{- 1}Y} = {\left( {{A^{T}\left( {CBC}^{T} \right)}^{- 1}A} \right)^{- 1}{A^{T}\left( {CBC}^{T} \right)}^{- 1}\left( {{AX} + {CW}} \right)}}} \\{= {{\left( {{A^{T}\left( {CBC}^{T} \right)}^{- 1}A} \right)^{- 1}{A^{T}\left( {CBC}^{T} \right)}^{- 1}{AX}} + {\left( {{A^{T}\left( {CBC}^{T} \right)}^{- 1}A} \right)^{- 1}{A^{T}\left( {CBC}^{T} \right)}^{- 1}{CW}}}} \\{= \left( {X + {\left( {{A^{T}\left( {CBC}^{T} \right)}^{- 1}A} \right)^{- 1}{A^{T}\left( {CBC}^{T} \right)}^{- 1}{({CW}).}}} \right.}\end{matrix}$Since W is zero mean, this also proves that {circumflex over (X)} isunbiased. Having expressed X as a function of B, X may now be estimatedusing measurements for vector Y and assuming B takes on a known value.The resulting estimate of the mean may then be used to estimate thevariance. This process may be iterated until the estimate of the meanconverges.

The initial estimate in the estimation of X uses the measurement vectorY and the routing matrices A and C. It also begins with the assumptionthat B=I, I being the identity matrix. Thus the initial estimate of X issimply the pseudo-inverse estimate, i.e. {circumflex over(X)}⁽⁰⁾={circumflex over (X)}(Y,I). Given this initial estimate of X,this estimate may be used to form the first estimate of B. This estimateof B can then be used to form an updated estimate of X. In general, thiscreates the recursion {circumflex over (X)}^((k+1))={circumflex over(X)}(Y,{circumflex over (B)}({circumflex over (X)}^((k)))). The finalestimate then consists of the convergent value of this recursion, if thelimit exists, which is the solution z to the fixed point equationz_({circumflex over (X)}(Y,{circumflex over (B)}(z)).)

In the above example, there remains the issue of estimating B as afunction of X When estimating the variability of traffic betweenorigin-destination node pairs over time, the confidence intervals forthe estimate of {circumflex over (X)} may be defined. To this end, theproblem of estimating the second order statistics of the fluctuationprocess {W(k)} may be considered, which is an attempt to estimate thecovariance matrix B. Two example methods of estimating the covariancematrix B are described below. Both of these estimation methods assumethat the mean traffic matrix is known, and employs the estimate{circumflex over (X)} of X previously obtained for the traffic matrix toyield an estimate of B.

Consider the vector Y−AX, which is a known vector if Y and X are known.A random KP×KP matrix Z may be defined such that Z=B−WW^(T). By thedefinition of B, Z has zero mean. Accordingly,(Y−AX)(Y−AX)^(T)=(CW)(CW)^(T)=CWW^(T)C^(T)=CBC^(T)+CZC^(T).

In the first example method, it is assumed that the covariance matrix Bmay be expressed as a linear function of a parameter vector r, meaningthat B=B(r). For example, it may be assumed that the trafficfluctuations for different origin-destination node pairs areuncorrelated and that the traffic fluctuations are uncorrelated in timefor each origin-destination node pair. This is equivalent to assumingthat the covariance matrix B is a diagonal matrix. In this case theparameters in r could specify the entries of B along its diagonal. Asanother example, it could be assumed that for origin-destination nodepair p, the value of E[W_(p)(k)W_(p)(k+m)] is expressible as a Taylorseries expression in the variable m, where the coefficients arecontained in the parameter vector r.

With this assumption, the matrix equations may be rewritten a formlikely to be more familiar to one skilled in the art by stacking theentries of the square matrix (Y−AX)(Y−AX)^(T) in a column vector V_(X),similarly stacking the entries of Z in a column vector Z. Then theequations may be rewritten as V_(X)=Hr+D Z, for some matrices H and DGiven X, the vector V_(X) is readily computed, and the parameter vectorr may be estimated using the pseudo-inverse approach, meaning theestimate {circumflex over (r)} of r is given by {circumflex over(r)}={circumflex over (r)}(X)=(H^(T)H)⁻¹H^(T)V_(X). This assumes thatthe rank of H is equal to the dimension of the parameter vector r, sothat (H^(T)H)⁻¹ is invertible. Note that the estimate of r is unbiasedsince Z is zero mean.

The estimate {circumflex over (B)} of B is then given by {circumflexover (B)}={circumflex over (B)}({circumflex over (X)})=B({circumflexover (r)}({circumflex over (X)})). A potential problem with this methodis that the estimate {circumflex over (B)} is not guaranteed to bepositive semidefinite, as all covariance matrices must be.

In the second example method, the traffic fluctuation vector W may bedirectly estimated, which may then be used to estimate the covariancematrix B Based upon the above, the equations may be written asY′(k)−A′(k)X=A′(k)W(k). Given X, the left-hand side of this equation isknown. Since the rank of A is typically less than P, which is thedimension of W(k), there are infinitely many values of W(k) whichsatisfy this equation. To form an estimate Ŵ(k) of W(k), a solution maybe found with the smallest possible Euclidian norm. Using standardvector space methods, the corresponding estimate isŴ(k)=(A′(k))^(T)(A′(k)(A′(k))^(T))⁻¹(Y′(k)−A′(k)X).

Note that by construction the rows of matrix A′(k) are linearlyindependent, which implies that A′(k)(A′(k))^(T) is positive definite,and therefore invertible. In this proposed method, since X is not knownexactly, X may be replaced with the estimate {circumflex over (X)}. Inso doing, estimates Ŵ(k) of W(k) may be obtained for each measurementinterval k=0, 12, . . . , K−1. If W(k) were observed directly, thecovariance matrix B could be easily estimated. Since W(k) may not beobserved directly, the estimate of Ŵ(k) is used in its place. As anexample, based on modeling assumptions, it could be hypothesized thatE[W_(p)(k)W_(q)(k+m)]=0p≠q and m≠0. In this case, the covariance matrixB would be completely determined by the value ofE[(W_(p)(k))²]=Var(W_(P)(k))=σ_(p) ² for all origin-destination nodepairs. Such values are readily estimated according to

${\hat{\sigma}}_{p}^{2} = {\frac{1}{K}{\sum\limits_{k = 0}^{K - 1}\;{\left( {{\hat{W}}_{p}(k)} \right)^{2}.}}}$If a user does not wish to assume that the traffic fluctuations areuncorrelated in time, the autocorrelation function of the trafficfluctuations could be estimated.

It is not clear whether one of the two above example methods forestimating the covariance matrix B may be more useful in practicalapplication, and other methods may also be employed. The above examplesare applicable to the estimation of a traffic matrix and the co-varianceof the traffic matrix in a stationary data environment.

Of course, the traffic matrices in a series of snapshots for an IPnetwork may not be stationary. The present invention may also be used toestimate the traffic matrix X_(p)(k) and the covariance of the trafficin a non-stationary environment. The following examples describepossible methods in accordance with the present invention in anon-stationary environment.

As before let A_(l,p)(k) be the fraction of the traffic X_(p)(k) from anorigin-destination node pair p that traverses link l during measurementinterval k. Rather than assume that {X(k)} is a random process with aconstant mean, it may be assumed that {X(k)} is cyclostationary.Specifically, this assumes that X(k)=X(k)+W(k),0≦k≦K. The assumptionthat {X(k)} is cyclostationary with period N, also means that X(k) andX(k+N) have the same marginal distribution. More specifically, it may beassumed that W(k) is zero mean and that {X(k)} is a deterministic(vector valued) sequence, periodic with period N. The noise vectors{W(k)} may be assumed to be cyclostationary to a second order, meaningthat E[W(k)W^(T)(k+m)]=B^((k,m)) where the covariance matrices B^((k,m))are such that B^((k,m))=B^((k+N),m) for all k.

The goal of the example methods is to estimate X(k) for all k given theobservations Y(k),0≦k<K. For the sake of simplicity, it may be assumedthat K is an integer multiple of N.

It may be assumed that X(k) may be represented as the weighted sum of2N_(b)+1 given basis functions,

${X(k)} = {\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{2N_{b}}\;{{\overset{\_}{0}}_{n}{{b_{n}(k)}.}}}$In particular, a Fourier expansion may be used, where

${b_{n}(k)} = \left\{ \begin{matrix}{{\cos\left( {2{{\pi{kn}}/N}} \right)},} & {{{if}\mspace{14mu} 0} \leq k < {N\mspace{14mu}{and}\mspace{14mu} 0} \leq n \leq N_{b}} \\{{\sin\left( {2\pi\;{{k\left( {n - N_{b}} \right)}/N}} \right)},} & {{{{if}\mspace{14mu} 0} \leq k < {{N\mspace{14mu}{and}\mspace{14mu} N_{b}} + 1} \leq n \leq {2N_{b}}},}\end{matrix} \right.$wherein

_(n) is a P×1 vector

_(n)=[

_(1n)

_(2n) . . .

_(pn)]^(T). Through substitution, the following may be obtained:

${Y^{\prime}(k)} = {{{{A^{\prime}(k)}\left( {\sum\limits_{n = 0}^{2N_{b}}\;{{\overset{\_}{0}}_{n}{b_{n}(k)}}} \right)} + {{A^{\prime}(k)}{W(k)}}} = {{{A^{''}(k)}\overset{\_}{0}} + {{A^{\prime}(k)}{W^{\prime}(k)}}}}$where the (2N_(b)+1)P×1 vector

is defined according to

$\overset{\_}{0} = \begin{bmatrix}{\overset{\_}{0}}_{0} \\{\overset{\_}{0}}_{1} \\\ldots \\{\overset{\_}{0}}_{2N_{b}}\end{bmatrix}$and A″(k) is the M_(k)×(2N_(b)+1)P matrix defined asA″(k)=[A′(k)b_(o)(k)A′(k)b₁(k) . . . A′(k)b₂N_(b)(k)].

Next, the matrix A may be redefined to be of dimension M×(2N_(b)+1)P asfollows:

$A = {\begin{bmatrix}{A^{''}(0)} \\{A^{''}(1)} \\\ldots \\{A^{''}\left( {K - 1} \right)}\end{bmatrix}.}$With this notation, the equation becomes Y=A

+CW.

From this point, essentially the same methods as was used in thestationary environment may be used to obtain an estimate of

, and hence an estimate for X(k), for each time k. The same approachesas were used for the stationary environment may be used to estimate thecovariance matrices. One skilled in the art will realize of course, thatthe equations used to iteratively perform these estimates will beexpressed in terms of

rather than X being determined using the estimate of

. These processes may then be used iteratively, as described above,until the estimates converge.

The methods in accordance with the present invention may be used eithertogether or separately to obtain additional information regarding thetraffic of an IP network and to estimate the traffic and covariance oftraffic of an IP network. While the various methods of the presentinvention may be particularly useful when used together, any of themethods described herein, or variations of the methods described herein,may be useful separately in obtaining improved information regarding IPnetworks and improved modeling, estimation, and forecasting of IPnetwork traffic patterns.

One particular advantage of methods in accordance with the presentinvention is that they may be employed using computer software. Suchsoftware may take a variety of forms, and may be written in anyprogramming language running on any computing platform. Such softwaremay be integrated with the link utilization data collection processemployed by an IP network, and may be further linked to an automatedprocess for adjusting link weights, if desired by the IP networkoperator.

1. A method for altering link weights in an IP network having aplurality of nodes connected by a plurality of links to increase therank of the IP network's routing matrix, wherein traffic in the IPnetwork may be described as Y=AX, Y being a link count vector obtainedby measuring link utilization, A being a routing matrix derived from IPnetwork, and X being the traffic matrix describing the traffic betweeneach origin-destination node pair, the method comprising: collectinglink utilization data for the links of the IP network using a firstrouting matrix; identifying at least one link weight as a candidate foralteration based on whether a rank value of the first routing matrix isaffected upon imposing a restriction the at least one link weight;altering at least one link weight in the IP network; and collecting linkutilization data for the links of the IP network after altering the atleast one link weight.
 2. The method for altering link weights in an IPnetwork to increase the rank of the IP network's routing matrix of claim1, further comprising: iteratively repeating the steps of altering atleast one link weight and collecting link utilization data for the linksof the IP network after altering the at least one link weight.
 3. Themethod for altering link weights in an IP network to increase the rankof the IP network's routing matrix of claim 2, wherein iterativelyrepeating the steps of altering at least one link weight and collectinglink utilization data for the links of the IP network after altering theat least one link weight comprises repeating the steps until a full rankrouting matrix is obtained and link utilization information has beencollected for each set of link weights.
 4. The method for altering linkweights in an IP network to increase the rank of the IP network'srouting matrix of claim 2, wherein iteratively repeating the steps ofaltering at least one link weight and collecting link utilization datafor the links of the IP network after altering the at least one linkweight comprises repeating the steps a predetermined number of times. 5.The method for altering link weights in an IP network to increase therank of the IP network's routing matrix of claim 1, wherein altering atleast one link weight in the IP network comprises altering exactly onelink weight.
 6. The method for altering link weights in an IP network toincrease the rank of the IP network's routing matrix of claim 1, whereinaltering at least one link weight in the IP network comprises alteringexactly two link weights.
 7. The method for altering link weights in anIP network to increase the rank of the IP network's routing matrix ofclaim 6, wherein altering exactly two link weights comprises alteringthe weights of two adjacent links in the IP network.
 8. The method foraltering link weights in an IP network to increase the rank of the IPnetwork's routing matrix of claim 1, wherein altering at least one linkweight in the IP network comprises altering exactly three link weights.9. The method for altering link weights in an IP network to increase therank of the IP network's routing matrix of claim 7, wherein alteringexactly three link weights comprises altering the weights of three linksforming a triangle in the IP network.
 10. At least one computer readablemedia for causing at least one computer to perform a method for alteringlink weights in an IP network having a plurality of nodes connected by aplurality of links to increase the rank of the IP network's routingmatrix, wherein traffic in the IP network may be described as Y=AX, Ybeing a link count vector obtained by measuring link utilization, Abeing a routing matrix derived from IP network, and X being the trafficmatrix describing the traffic between each origin-destination node pair,the method comprising: collecting link utilization data for the links ofthe IP network using a first routing matrix; identifying at least onelink weight as a candidate for alteration based on whether a rank valueof the first routing matrix is affected upon imposing a restriction theat least one link weight; altering at least one link weight in the IPnetwork; and collecting link utilization data for the links of the IPnetwork after altering the at least one link weight.
 11. The at leastone computer readable media of claim 10, wherein the method furthercomprises: iteratively repeating the steps of altering at least one linkweight and collecting link utilization data for the links of the IPnetwork after altering the at least one link weight.
 12. The at leastone computer readable media of claim 11, wherein iteratively repeatingthe steps of altering at least one link weight and collecting linkutilization data for the links of the IP network after altering the atleast one link weight comprises repeating the steps until a full rankrouting matrix is obtained and link utilization information has beencollected for each set of link weights.